[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 139 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7988-H7993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL CONTROL FOR LOCAL LAW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) is
[[Page H7989]]
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon because
of a threat, a rare threat, because this seldom happens in the House
anymore, but a threat from at least one Member of this House to try to
nullify a local initiative approved by the voters of the District of
Columbia.
But when it comes to the lawful initiative for District of Columbia
citizens, that is a threat to democracy that means that anyone who
represents this city, has to come to the floor and to indicate to
Members how important it is to hold fast to your own principles.
Wherever you stand on the District of Columbia or any of the
underlying issues, this is the local jurisdiction of 650,000 people who
pay taxes without full representation in this House.
So I am asking Members of the House not to take advantage of an
anachronism in the law which does allow Members of the House to step
forward, if they are so inclined, to try to get others to join them in
nullifying the local laws of a local jurisdiction. If one reads the
history of our country, it is hard to find anything more un-American.
That is why, particularly, I have to thank the bipartisan group of
Members who stood with me yesterday, three Members of this House--two
Democrats and a Republican--who themselves come from States that have
taken action on the underlying issue, one that is rapidly developing in
our country where the States differ among themselves. But since each
State is, as a local or State matter, a government unto itself, those
matters don't come before this House.
The Members who stood with me yesterday were Representative Earl
Blumenauer of Oregon, which has approved a ballot initiative just this
past election day, that legalized small amounts of marijuana;
Representative Jared Polis of Colorado, his was the first State to
legalize small amounts of marijuana; and Dana Rohrabacher of
California, who is perhaps the recognized leader in the House of
Representatives and in the country for reform of marijuana laws.
{time} 1400
Alaska and Oregon joined two other States, Washington and Colorado,
and yes, a third, the District of Columbia, approved the legalization
of marijuana in small amounts. I am going to indicate to the House how
that came about because it didn't come about in the usual way. There
were pressing concerns that led the District to move to decriminalize
and then legalize small amounts of marijuana.
In fact, the D.C. Council, upon hearing concerns about disparities in
arrests and convictions based on race, had moved to decriminalize
marijuana with a small fine; whereas, before, there was a penalty of up
to 6 months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. After the council passed
that decriminalization law--and 18 States have decriminalized--then
some residents put legalization on the November ballot.
Now the people have spoken. Two-thirds of the residents of the
District of Columbia say that the council did not go far enough, and
they have, I think, among them a number of reasons that I will try to
indicate on the floor this afternoon why they thought they had to go
further.
I indicated that there are and already were States that had legalized
marijuana, and the Justice Department has taken the position and took
it again at a hearing on the D.C. decriminalization law that the
District will be treated like the States that have relaxed their
marijuana laws--in our case, 2 ounces of marijuana for personal use.
And the position of the Justice Department--and I will indicate later
why the Justice Department has taken that position--has been that, as a
matter of prosecutorial priority, the Justice Department, the U.S.
attorneys of the United States are not in the business of prosecuting
people who smoke small amounts of marijuana.
So the District is to be treated in the same way as the States who
have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana. The Justice
Department is on record in a hearing saying that--and we appreciate
that the District is not to be treated differently when it comes to
Federal enforcement, any differently than, for example, Oregon,
Colorado, and Alaska, and you don't see the Justice Department rushing
forward to prosecute what will almost always be young people for
possessing small amounts of marijuana.
Particularly for new Members, I want to make clear that there is an
anomaly here, an anachronism, because the House does still have the
authority to step forward and nullify the local laws of the District of
Columbia. That goes back hundreds of years, and the fact that anybody
would attempt to use that authority today flies in the face of 200
years of history and democratization in our country.
It is interesting to know that the Member who has stepped forward to
stop D.C. thus far is a sophomore. I want to thank Members of Congress
who recognize that they have the authority and who may disagree with
the District but have not in fact moved to nullify local law. This
really isn't where you stand on the law. It is whether you believe
local jurisdictions should have what the Framers believed all should
have throughout the United States, and that is the right to pass local
laws without interference by the Federal Government.
That is the principle at stake here. That is why we rarely have
Members step forward to try to nullify a law of the District of
Columbia, and I am very grateful that principle for most Members is
almost always observed.
Now, I want to make something very clear: I am not here this
afternoon to make a case for the use of marijuana; I am here to make a
case only for local control of local law.
If you were to ask my preference, and obviously, I am obligated to
support the laws of my local jurisdiction here, but if you were to ask
my preference, I would say to you, in all candor, that I don't believe
Americans should smoke anything.
We know that millions of lives were lost needlessly because people
didn't know about the deadly effects--I think I do not speak
inaccurately when I say the ``deadly effects''--of cigarette smoking.
Cigarette manufacturers are still paying the price with millions of
dollars--billions of dollars that they have had to pay States in order
to make up for essentially hiding information on the effects of
cigarette smoking.
Frankly, there is much investigation still to be done about cannabis.
We certainly can't say it is good for your health, except for medical
marijuana.
Representative Rohrabacher yesterday spoke of a constituent whose son
had come back from Iraq and had seizures and other problems emanating
from his service, and no amount of medicine had done him any good. He
was able to get a prescription for medical marijuana, and it controlled
the problem.
Yet, by the way, although there have been bills introduced, the VA
could not have prescribed medical marijuana to that veteran.
So I can't make the case for the underlying issue. In fact, there is
evidence of harm to the brains of children. The bills that have passed
the States are for adults only, people over 21. I am not even making
the case for them. We need to know a lot more about marijuana, a
substance that is breathed in deeply.
However, I tell you this much: I cannot make a case at all for a drug
conviction for smoking marijuana in small amounts. That is where it
seems to me that there is increasing agreement by the American people.
Just look at the latest polls. 54 percent approve legalization. I
don't think they approve of legalization because they smoke cannabis; I
think they approve of legalization because they don't believe people
ought to be convicted of a drug offense for possessing small amounts of
marijuana.
There is very good news. The reason we always speak of marijuana and
young people is because, apparently, people tend to outgrow the use of
marijuana. As young adults leave college and become more mature, they
tend to smoke very little of anything today and no longer marijuana.
You don't see lots of middle-aged people talking about marijuana
either.
I wish I could say that their parents had outgrown alcohol, that
people could outgrow alcohol, which is a legal substance that destroys
lives, the lives of individuals, lives of entire families. Some become
addicted to the substance, but if all you do is use it and
[[Page H7990]]
get drunk and don't hurt anybody, then of course you are not convicted
of a crime.
A Member of this House, Representative Andy Harris, makes the case
for nullification of the D.C. law based on harm to young people;
except, of course, the law doesn't allow young people to smoke, and it
is interesting to know that Representative Polis said, because it is
legal in Colorado, that smoking among juveniles in Colorado has gone
down. I asked why.
He said it is because Colorado is wiping out the illegal market and
kids have to go to that illegal market to get marijuana--and to a very
illegal market to get it because some are under 21, so young people are
smoking less and less in Colorado.
I don't think you can make the case against freedom and liberty based
on children here, where we are talking about a substance for adults,
and not when the District of Columbia already has introduced a bill
called the Marijuana Use Public Information Campaign, which Council
Member Tommy Wells has put on a fast track for passage. I like the bill
that Council Member Wells is taking through the council. It would
include education forums for each ward of the city. There are eight
wards.
It is trying to get to people where they live, educating the public
on what we do know of the impact of marijuana use and abuse. The bill
requires that the Mayor report to the council on the type and the
frequency and the provider and school age level of public school health
education programs related to substance abuse, including marijuana use,
and of course alcohol and tobacco.
Again, not making the case that I cannot in honesty make, I do want
to draw the attention of the House to the fact that marijuana is still
classified under Schedule I, and that is the schedule for the most
dangerous drugs.
Marijuana is scheduled in the same category as heroin and LSD and
ecstasy, even though the science we know today tells us that the
addictive qualities of cannibis are nowhere near the same; worse,
marijuana is scheduled above cocaine.
Now, if you want to know a drug that has torn big cities and suburbs
alike apart, it would be cocaine. So cannibis is more dangerous,
according to the scheduling of drugs, than cocaine and methadon and
OxyContin.
Well, young people know that is not the case. The young people who
smoke and then outgrow marijuana know that is not the case, so they
don't pay any attention to the law.
And as I shall indicate, the laws don't pay much attention to them
because most of them do not face the possibility of conviction. They
don't face conviction, and I want to emphasize this because, when you
consider law enforcement, it is impossible not to recognize that State
and local law enforcement officials and Federal law enforcement
officials, have virtually ceased to enforce the laws that make
marijuana a Schedule I drug offense--but some people do get arrested.
I have already indicated that the Justice Department has said that it
will not prosecute people for possession of small amounts. U.S.
attorneys in Democratic and Republican administrations for years now--
there are many who have never prosecuted anyone for small amounts of
marijuana.
In effect, that means that marijuana is so widely used, has caused so
little in the way of known harmful effects, that it is, today, de facto
legal. That is why young people take the risk.
{time} 1415
If that is the case, if convictions rarely occur, let's look at what
happens when arrests and convictions do occur.
What led the District of Columbia to pass its law, its first law, the
decriminalization law, were two studies done by outside organizations,
two reputable organizations: the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union. They found that while
Whites and Blacks use marijuana at the same rate, 9 out of 10 arrests
are of African Americans. This city is half White and half Black.
The people of the District of Columbia have decided that
decriminalization alone would not undo this outrageous disparity. A
conviction on your record for marijuana is a conviction for a schedule
1 drug offense. And it doesn't matter; the word ``drug'' is what
matters. That record can sentence, for example, a young Black man or
woman or young Hispanics to a lifetime of underemployment or
unemployment. Indeed, if there is enough underemployment and
unemployment, a drug conviction for a small amount of marijuana can
lead some further to a life where drugs become, in their view, the only
way to make a living at all. So for them it can be a gateway drug
precisely because the marijuana arrest or conviction has simply stopped
their lives.
So when the council understood that 9 out of 10 arrests were of
African Americans, it could not justify keeping that law on the books.
And I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have now had, for 10 years,
a Commission on Black Men and Boys and am cochair of a Congressional
Caucus on Black Men and Boys because of issues like this that affect
young men of color. Such a conviction can ruin a young man's life for
work. If it makes work impossible or work possible only in the
underground or the illegal economy, then it ruins his life for marriage
and for children and for stability in the community.
The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys and the Congressional
Caucus on Black Men and Boys, of course, look at issues across the
board, but there are serious concerns about disparities of this kind
that affect men and essentially take them out of the African American
community, out of the Hispanic community, and make them men apart.
Marijuana use is simply one example.
And again I point out, it is not that people of color use marijuana
at a greater rate than their counterparts of the same age who are
White. It is who gets arrested. Whether that is in the ordinary course
of law enforcement, intentional or not, those are the facts.
The interesting thing about the investigations by the independent
organizations in the District, is that they find that these statistics
showing hugely disparate treatment of people of color from other
Americans on marijuana convictions and arrest are by no means confined
to the District of Columbia. It is a nationwide phenomenon. If only a
tiny minority are arrested and they turn out to be people of color, you
have a classic case of racial discrimination.
I note that I have been joined on the floor by a very good friend
from Nevada (Ms. Titus). I am pleased to yield to her.
Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much.
I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Norton, for
arranging this important discussion about an issue that is moving
quickly in State capitals across the country, here in Washington, D.C.,
but in Congress maybe not so much.
I would like to speak about the legal regulated use of marijuana for
medical and commercial sale because this is an important issue that has
garnered attention nationwide as States and communities continue to
enact laws to allow for legal and carefully regulated and taxed sale
and use. We see this in all parts of the country, in all types of
communities, and we see it not just passed by State legislatures, but
mandated through public referenda.
I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley in the State of Nevada
where, for nearly 14 years, we had a voter-approved mandate allowing
for medical marijuana. Then just last year, the State legislature put
forth a legal framework for medical marijuana businesses to be
permitted, regulated, and to go into operation around the State.
This has led to enormous interest from investors and entrepreneurs,
researchers, and, most importantly, patients who now can benefit,
through the assistance of their physicians, from medical marijuana for
the treatment for all kinds of things, a variety of things: epileptic
seizures in children, PTSD treatment, pain relief from cancer, appetite
enhancers for people undergoing chemotherapy, and HIV/AIDS.
Nevada is now one of 23 States with legal marijuana for medical or
commercial sale, and those numbers continue to grow after poll after
poll shows increasing support for legalization and regulation. We saw
two States just in the election last week where marijuana was approved.
[[Page H7991]]
Now, that brings us to what is happening here in Congress. Over the
course of the last 113th congressional session, we have seen
considerable advancements that had not been the case up until now. A
few years ago, just a short time ago, only a small group of Members of
Congress would be willing to speak out about medical marijuana, much
less support any kind of legislation that would update our Nation's
antiquated drug laws. But today, Democrats and some Republicans have
come together to advocate for this industry and work to update the
Nation's laws to catch up to what is happening in the States and to
reflect the realities of what is going on in Nevada, in Washington,
D.C., and in places around the country.
For the first time, with the help of leaders like Congressman
Blumenauer, Congressman Rohrabacher, and others, the House of
Representatives passed not one, but two significant amendments to
protect the rights of States when it comes to legal marijuana sales and
use.
As more States and communities move forward with ballot initiatives
like the one that passed here in D.C., 2-1, or with regulatory laws
like those that were just enacted in Nevada, it is important that we,
as elected representatives of our communities, become educated and
advocate for the community's best interests.
Because of the important potential role that medical marijuana will
play in Nevada's economic future and because this conversation is so
quickly becoming a national issue, I have tried to educate myself and
have been traveling the country visiting dispensaries, growers, and
experts in the industry to learn about the fiscal and scientific
potential, as well as the obstacles that are faced by these businesses.
I traveled to the Berkeley Patients Group, The Apothecarium, and Blum
dispensary in the San Francisco Bay area to learn more about how the
industry has evolved from leaders like Sean Loose, Ryan Hudson, and
Salwa Ibrahim, all of whom are recognized experts and innovators in the
field of medical marijuana.
I went to Arizona to visit with Beth Stavola and Dr. Sue Sisley and
discussed the advantages of medical marijuana in treating veterans with
PTSD and for helping seniors. I also met with folks at Monarch Wellness
Center to hear how an entrepreneur's personal history with his mother's
medical condition inspired him to open Scottsdale's first medical
marijuana dispensary. And I recently traveled to Colorado, where I was
very impressed by CannLabs' facility that is bringing the highest
standards of quality and safety to the medical cannabis industry.
I would encourage my colleagues here in Congress to visit these
businesses, talk to their employees, and see firsthand that today's
industry is not just some little head shop on the corner with a picture
of Che Guevara. It is a very professional, very scientific, very
regulated industry. It is a modern, professional office with skilled
and educated personnel.
So we have more work to do. It has begun, but we have a lot to do as
we start the 114th Congress. We should concentrate on issues that are
having a significant impact and bringing uncertainty to an industry
that is booming and needs certain protections. We also need to regulate
it to protect children, for example, and also hold it accountable so it
can make a financial contribution by being a legal, regulated operator
that pays taxes.
Congress should also allow medical personnel at our veterans
hospitals to recommend the best available care for our Nation's
veterans, and that may include medical marijuana. This could help with
the effects of PTSD that are far too common in our Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans.
We must also ensure that products are available for vital research
into the medical benefits of marijuana. So far the research has mostly
been on the negative side. What are the possible positive contributions
that can come from studying the benefits so we can advance the science
and move us beyond that notion of ``Reefer Madness''?
And as you have been hearing from my colleague, it is important that,
in considering all of this, Congress respect home rule and the will of
the people. That is certainly true in the District of Columbia. Their
laws need to be respected because they have been enacted in the best
interests of that own community. Just as State laws are, we need to
respect those states' rights.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this
important issue and to protect the rights and interests of those
communities like Washington and States like Nevada where the people
have decided that this is the way of the future.
I thank you for letting me join you today, and I look forward to
working with you on this issue.
Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Titus, I must say I thank you for coming to the
floor, but I particularly thank you and congratulate you for the
extensive homework you have done educating yourself before you took a
position on this issue. It is something to be emulated.
I do want to say, when you spoke of the need for further
investigation, and particularly when you considered how many veterans
with PTSD and other ailments may benefit from medical marijuana, it is
worth noting that marijuana is so sharply regulated and restricted that
we have not even been able to do the studies necessary to find out what
is wrong with it or what is right with it. For example, medical
marijuana cries out for studies. If, in fact, the anecdotal evidence is
to be believed, that in itself should lead to Federal studies by the
NIH and federally funded studies.
What are we afraid of? We need to know more about this substance. And
on the negative side, we know that it has some harmful effects on the
brain for children. We need to know more about it for adults. Why would
the Federal Government not be out front, considering how widely used
this substance is?
If the government had done the kind of homework you had, Ms. Titus, I
think we would be much further ahead. Thank you very much for coming to
the floor with all of that useful information from your own study.
{time} 1430
I particularly appreciate your supporting the District's home rule
and the right to pass its own local laws without Federal interference.
I thought that was what both Democrats and Republicans believed. I
thought that was the contention of Republicans that want to get the
Federal Government even out of Federal matters. I thought they would be
my natural allies to say, ``Big foot Federal Government, don't mess
with any local jurisdiction.'' Yes, even here in the District of
Columbia.
In July, the District's marijuana decriminalization bill took effect.
I should note that the District passed medical marijuana earlier with
one of the strictest sets of regulations in the United States. Our
council has shown it knows how to handle these issues.
The threat that has been made is to use our local budget. Now, if you
want to know insult on top of injury, you ask what is our local budget
doing here? We are talking about $6 billion raised in the District of
Columbia locally from businesses and residents. It comes here, again,
because of an anomaly.
Although the District got home rule 40 years ago, there was still the
obligation to bring its balanced budget here, where there is no
balanced budget. Well, it has resulted in shutdowns of the District of
Columbia more than once. It has been responsible for the fact that the
District pays a premium on Wall Street because our budget has to be
passed by another body that knows nothing about our budget. And to its
credit, the Appropriations Committee doesn't even have hearings on our
budget because it doesn't intend to overturn our budget. But it does
allow people to come forward and use the budget as a vehicle for
attachments to try to nullify our local laws. It is rarely done--and I
appreciate that--because Members, in their own forbearance, have tended
not to do that. But we do have a threat on this bill.
Now, the House did pass an amendment to block D.C.'s
decriminalization bill. Representative Harris offered it in committee.
And this amendment was not included, I am pleased to say, in the fiscal
year 2015 short-term resolution or in the Senate's fiscal year 2015
D.C. appropriation bill. You see, there is a real difference here, and
I hope that the House, in contempla-
[[Page H7992]]
tion, will understand it also should go with liberty and freedom for
the local jurisdiction.
The administration has issued a statement of policy that it strongly
opposes the amendment that passed the House. And it did so. And here I
am quoting its words:
Because it violates principles of states' rights and of
District home rule.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the District is not even a pioneer when it
comes to marijuana decriminalization or legalization. Yet it is the
District that is singled out. There has been no Federal interference.
No one has come to this floor who may disagree with the notion of
legalization to call down the States that have legalized or
decriminalized. And I think the reason is because there is simply no
principled way for Members who 100 percent believe in local control to
call out the States that may have taken their own route different from
the other States and the District.
There is just no principled way to do anything with respect to what
those States have done because those are local matters or State
matters. Therefore, for the District, it is particularly painful not to
be respected because the District has no vote on this floor.
When the bill containing the Andy Harris amendment was passed,
everybody in the House could vote on it except the Member who
represents the District of Columbia, because I have no vote even on
matters affecting the District of Columbia. When the Democrats
controlled the House, I would have had a vote on amendments to
appropriations bills because they occur in the committee of the whole,
but even that was taken away. So every Member got to vote on a matter
affecting only my district except the one Member that the District
sends to the Congress, and that is why I come to the floor.
We pay $12,000 per capita in Federal taxes. Keep that figure in mind
because that is the highest per capita figure in Federal taxes paid by
any jurisdiction. The lowest in Federal taxes happens to be
Mississippi. I point out the difference because I think Mississippi
pays about $4,000 per capita. The District pays $12,000 per capita.
So you can imagine if you support the Federal Government at this rate
and you have no vote on the House floor and others have a vote that
could take away your laws, you perhaps have every reason to be
concerned.
May I ask how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 18 minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I say that there is no principled position except the American
position that local jurisdictions must have complete autonomy to deal
with local matters, I can offer at least one very prominent example.
Senator Rand Paul was asked what he thought about the District's
marijuana legalization initiative. And I want to quote him. Senator
Paul said:
I'm not for having the Federal Government get involved. I
really haven't taken a stand on the actual legalization, but
I'm against the Federal Government telling them they can't.
This is a classic principled position because Senator Paul hasn't
taken a position on the underlying issue. He has only taken a position
consistent with his views, and what I thought were the views of my
Republican and Democratic colleagues alike, that the Federal Government
shouldn't tell a local jurisdiction that it can't do what is, in this
case, de facto legal, because the Federal Government does not
prosecute. All I am asking Members to do is to take the same principled
position that Senator Paul has taken.
Notwithstanding Senator Paul's position, Representative Harris has
said that he will try to insert language into the omnibus bill to block
legalization in D.C. Well, I am going to try to keep him from doing
that. But isn't it interesting to note that Representative Harris
couldn't keep his own State, Maryland, from decriminalizing marijuana,
and so he hops over into my jurisdiction to do what he couldn't do in
the State where he has authority. Well, we are not going to have it.
Representative Rohrabacher and I disagree on any number of things.
That is why I was pleased to have him stand with me. But what he said
is interesting because he has the longest history of fighting for
marijuana reform. I want to quote him. He called on Members of his own
party to ``wake up and see where the American people are.''
Representative Rohrabacher is from conservative Orange County. He
says he believes that his position on marijuana reform may have helped
him to gain 5 points in the last election. He says that he thinks that
GOP principles about individual liberty and limited Federal Government
are completely consistent with his own views on marijuana, and
certainly consistent with his own philosophy. I cite Representative
Rohrabacher and Senator Rand Paul because they have taken positions
that I do not believe are inconsonant with the positions of their
party.
People are fond of saying that this is not a partisan issue. Well, I
guess it is because the parties have not come together on it. What is
not a partisan issue, however, is local control of local laws.
I want to note what my good friend from Nevada referred to.
Representative Rohrabacher and a Democrat, Sam Farr, succeeded in
passing an amendment in this House, this very Congress, that would keep
the Justice Department from intervening in States that have legalized
medical marijuana. This matter passed in a Republican House.
The fact is that the Justice Department has indicated that it will
not intervene--and it has not intervened--when it comes to medical
marijuana or recreational use of medical marijuana when we are talking
about small amounts. And yet the House came forward and indicated where
it stands, and that is where I think the country is going and where the
House is going.
But there is an important issue still pending--one that this House
has passed and I urge the Senate to pass, along with the Rohrabacher-
Farr bill--and that is a bill that is sponsored by Representative
Blumenauer and Representative Rohrabacher, who were joined at a press
conference by Grover Norquist, who, of course, is the antitax advocate.
Their bill passed this House. It would change Federal tax law so that
State-sanctioned providers can claim deductions and credits as other
businesses do.
I am sorry I said that passed. This did not pass. This is pending.
What did pass is an amendment that would no longer penalize financial
institutions because they provide financial services to State-
sanctioned marijuana operations. Now, you can imagine those operations
now must deal in cash because the banks and the financial institutions
are afraid to deal with them.
This amendment, which is perhaps the most urgent of the reforms, did
pass the House, and I think it, again, shows growing recognition of
where the country is and where the House should be headed.
It is worth noting that just hearing the names of the States that
have decriminalized marijuana, I think, makes the case for where the
country is headed. This is decriminalization alone. States that have
done so, in alphabetical order, have red and blue running right through
the list. I am talking decriminalizing marijuana for small amounts.
They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
They have nothing in common except they don't convict people for
possessing small amounts of marijuana.
{time} 1445
The Congress, 40 years ago, passed the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act. That act says that matters of local law are for the District
alone. It was a landmark law. We intend to have it respected.
There were some exceptions. They were very small, and I can guarantee
you that there were no exceptions of the kind that I have spoken about
today.
Legalization in the District of Columbia comes from the direct votes
of two-thirds of the people in my district; therefore, it comes with a
very special mandate. It comes with a mandate of freedom and liberty,
and it comes with a very special mandate that the country will probably
increasingly note, and that special mandate is the disparity in arrests
based on race, where 9 out of 10 of the arrests are of blacks in, by
the way, a progressive city.
[[Page H7993]]
It is very hard to justify such a law remaining on the books. That is
why I think the people went all the way to legalization.
So what I am asking this afternoon is for House Members to remember
your own States and the States of your colleagues that have taken
action in one form or another to relax marijuana laws, and I am asking
for all of the residents of the District of Columbia simply the same
ordinary privilege.
I particularly ask, not only our own Members, but Members who I think
would particularly want to take note in the other body because in that
body are found the Senators who represent the 23 States that have
passed medical marijuana laws, the 18 States that have passed marijuana
decriminalization laws, and the four States that have legalized
marijuana.
It is difficult for me to see how the other body, which has States
which have relaxed marijuana in this way, could possibly vote not to
give equal treatment to the residents of the District of Columbia.
So, Mr. Speaker, at bottom, I am asking only for equality of
treatment for the residents of the District of Columbia. I come in that
spirit only. I don't ask for your support for the underlying matter.
I ask for your support on the one issue in which I believe I can say
Members in this body, to the last Member, are in agreement, and that
is, since the very founding of our country, the principle that holds us
together is federalism, that what happens in a State may not be what we
would desire or do in our own, but if it is a local matter and if it is
legal and constitutional, then it is for the people of that State.
Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of freedom and democracy. I ask in
that spirit for the same respect for the people of the District of
Columbia that I would give to the people of every State of the Union.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________